SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1600

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.
M. D. A. Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Kartar Chand And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4379 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15566 of 2024)
Decided on : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
M/S. Lawfic, Advocate, Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Advocate, Mr. Koshy John, Advocate, Ms. Athira G Nair, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Santosh, Advocate, Ms. Viddusshi, Advocate and Ms. Haritha H, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate and Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to accident - Tribunal awarded Rs.90,000; High Court enhanced to Rs.6,63,000; appeal sought further enhancement - Appellant suffered permanent disability; appropriate multiplier and income calculations applied - Court recalculated compensation to Rs.8,73,200, allowing appeal and modifying previous awards. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Compensation Calculation - Use of multipliers should comply with legal precedents, confirmed review of appropriate multipliers applicable to age group - Claims must account for permanent disability and loss of income due to injuries. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a 27-year-old Sepoy, sustained serious injuries from an accident involving an offending vehicle while cycling. Initially awarded Rs.90,000 by Tribunal, this was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.6,63,000, and further challenged here.

Findings of Court:
Compensation recalculated to Rs.8,73,200 considering multiplier corrections and appropriate income assessments.

Issues: Whether the compensation awarded was adequate and whether the multiplier was correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court referenced prior rulings to assert that the multiplier for persons aged 26-30 is 17, adjusting the compensation proportionately due to established permanent disability.

Result: Civil Appeal allowed, modifying the award to Rs.8,73,200.

Table of Content
1. claimant suffered serious injuries from an accident. (Para 3 , 4)
2. high court enhanced compensation based on tribunal's errors. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court recalculates compensation applying correct multiplier. (Para 10 , 11)
4. final orders for compensation and interest established. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

Time taken for disposal of the claim petition Time taken for disposal of appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court

7 years 3 months 14 years Excluding application for review and recall 11 months

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd August 2023, passed in CM-4724-CII-2023 in CM-9737-CII-2019 in RA-CR-1-2019 in FAO-3653-2002 (O&M), by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Primarily, the order impugned before the High Court was dated 9th April 2002 passed in MACT Case No. 8 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 1st January 1993, the claimant-appellant, then aged 27 and employed as a Sepoy in the Army, was proceeding towards the bank on his bicycle, when the offending vehicle bearing registration number HR-01-A-9247, driven by Kartar Chand, Respondent No.1 herein struck and dragged him for a considerable distance. Consequently, the claimant-appellant suffered serious head injuries and multiple fractures in his left foot. He underwent treatment at the Military Hospital, Chandimandir, where a rod was inserted in his left foot and his jaw was repaired with metal wires. He was later admitted again for further treatment of his left leg in the Military Hospital. On account of the injuries suffered, the claimant-appellant sustained permanent disability, and was unable to either carry any weight on his head or walk without the support of a stick.

4. An application seeking compensation was filed before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of only Rs.90,000/- vide Award dated 9th April 2002 along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition, for the claimant-appellant had failed to prove any loss of income as a result of the accident. The medical treatment of the Claimant-Appellant was free, and he had failed to produce any bills for private treatment. Hence, the Tribunal granted the amount payable to the claimant as Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.30,000/-towards loss of enjoyment of amenities.

5. Being aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. The High Court, vide the Order dated 5th July 2016, enhanced the total amount of compensation payable as Rs.6,63,000/-, by adding a sum of Rs.5,73,000/. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not granting loss of income on account of injury for the testimony of PW1, established that he stood discharged from the army in the year 2002 due to being placed in the lower medical category. The High Court applied a multiplier of 16 to the Claimant's income and awarded an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000 respectively towards the heads of pain & suffering and loss of enjoyment of amenities.

7. The claimant-appellant sought a review of the said judgment, with an application for condonation of delay in 859 days, which stood dismissed by the High Court. He further preferred a recall application, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order herein. Hence, the claimant-appellant is now before us.

8. The significant point of challenge being that the compensation awarded is inadequate warranting interference, in accordance with the law.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. We are inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, for the multiplier applied is not in accordance with law. In National Insurance Co. L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top